Fisheries Bill (Eighth sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 18, page 10, line 3, leave out paragraph (b) and insert�

�(1A) Determinations under subsection (1) must by 2020 at the latest must not exceed the FMSY reference point and be in accordance with international law, having regard to the interdependence of stocks, in order to maintain the stock population above a level capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield and to ensure long-term viability of the stock population.�

The purpose of this amendment is to set a target of 2020 for catch limits to be set at sustainable levels. It also removes the power of the Secretary of State to set fishing limits in line with the �days at sea� approach which can lead to overfishing.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 59, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�4,�at end insert�

�(1A) In making a determination under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that any maximum quantity of sea fish that may be caught by British fishing boats does not exceed the amount that, in the Secretary of State�s view, the best available scientific evidence suggests would ensure that populations of harvested species are restored and maintained above biomass levels and harvested at mortality rates capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.�

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the determination of the maximum quantity of sea fish caught does not exceed the level required to produce a maximum sustainable yield, based on scientific evidence.

Amendment 105, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�4,�at end insert�

�(1A) No determination of effort quota under subsection (1)(b) may be made until the completion of a trial for the relevant area of sea, stocks fished, fishing methods used, documentation methods used and any other relevant considerations that demonstrates that there is no possibility of such a determination causing�

(a) a detriment to the achievement to any of the fisheries objectives;

(b) exceeding the maximum sustainable yield of any stock;

(c) reducing the accuracy of the recording of catches;

(d) increasing the risk of danger to the crew of fishing boats.�

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State making a determination of effort quota until a days at sea trial has been completed and shown not to cause adverse impacts.

Amendment 26, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�19,�leave out paragraph (b).

The purpose of this amendment is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to set fishing limits in line with the �days at sea� approach which can lead to overfishing.

Amendment 27, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�29,�leave out subsection (8).

The purpose of this amendment is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to set fishing limits in line with the �days at sea� approach which can lead to overfishing.

[Mr Carmichael]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Amendment 25 would reassert the commitment to reaching the maximum sustainable yield threshold, to which we are currently permitted as part of the common fisheries policy, by 2020. The amendment was drafted by Greener UK and it has the support of a number of environmental lobby groups.

This is probably one of the most significant amendments that we will consider; it certainly comes to the heart of the matter. The lack of proper reference to the maximum sustainable yield is one of the most worrying aspects of the Bill. There is a nod toward this early in the Bill, but otherwise it is pretty well absent. I know there are concerns in the industry about maximum sustainable yields, but this is a commitment we have made and I am concerned that, at the very least, the Committee should hear an explanation from the Minister of why, at this stage, we should seek to walk away from it. I suggest that that is a somewhat poor signal to send.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman advise us how amendment 25 would work in relation to the devolved Administrations managing stock and quotas?

[Mr Carmichael]

I would very much hope that they, too, would be working with a maximum sustainable yield principle. I am not aware of any suggestion that they would not.

[Luke Pollard]

We appreciate the argument for amendment 25. The Opposition have committed to leaving the European Union without any roll-back of environmental standards and MSY by 2020 seems to be a glaring omission from this Bill. The Minister will know that we are signed up to that under the common fisheries policy and that it is Government policy under the UN sustainable development goals to continue to be signed up to MSY by 2020. However, I suspect he will say that, given that the Bill is set to come into force beyond that point, it is no longer necessary to have that commitment in the Bill. While I see his argument there, it is not good enough; we must strive to ensure that MSY is a guiding principle of how fisheries are looked at. That is why the Opposition have tabled amendment 59, in a similar vein to amendment 25, tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

We note that amendment 25 seeks to remove days at sea and effort-based quota provision. We will discuss days at sea in more detail later, on amendments 26 and 27 and our amendment 23, but in short, we do not want to exclude it from the Bill entirely, as some fisheries are already captured by this form of fishing. Any new effort-based quota allocation should be able to take place only following a robust trial�something that was featured in the White Paper, but which has mysteriously disappeared from the text of the Bill. We think amendment 59 is better placed than amendment 25: fishers need fish to fish, and thriving fish stocks are critical for a profitable and prosperous industry. They are affected by factors outside our immediate control�the temperature and acidity of the sea, for instance�but one thing we can and do control to ensure thriving and healthy fish stocks is how much fish we take from the seas.

Dr Abigail McQuatters-Gollop, a lecturer in marine conservation at the University of Plymouth, in the patch I represent, said:

�Decisions about how much we take from marine environment has to be based on scientific episode and needs to be a duty not an objective.�

The view that MSY is not firmed up enough in the Bill is shared by key environmental stakeholders and across the industry. Griffin Carpenter, from the New Economics Foundation, who gave evidence to this Committee, said,

�Something I think is missing from the Bill�is commitments to maximum sustainable yield�not just the stock commitment but the flow�Many of us were surprised that was not in the Bill.���[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 107, Q205.]

Helen McLachlan, also speaking to the Committee, said that the 2020 deadline turned things around in the EU from short-term policy making that overshot scientific evidence and increased biomass and decreased mortality and that, if we lose it, we take a backward step.

It is important that the debate around MSY is comprehensive and based on sound evidence. We must not lose that from the debate. We need to ensure that tone and that sentiment, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised, throughout the Bill and in the messaging we give. That is why MSY by 2020 is such an important consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We received some interesting evidence on this from Dr Carl O�Brien from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, who is the leading expert on this. I know that a number of green NGOs have suggested that they would like to see the language tightened here, but we have to listen to those who have the greatest experience in managing maximum sustainable yield and in calculating the measurements, and direct experience of the negotiations. As he pointed out, there are two dangers. In a mixed fishery it is simply a scientific impossibility to set every species at MSY. When they are in a mixed fishery, it is necessary to place some at the lower end of the MSY range and some at the upper end. There will be challenges, as we have heard with choke species.

Secondly, Norway, for example, uses MSY as one of its guides, but not its only guide�it uses other scientific metrics as well. There will be times when it will make sense for us to reach an accommodation with countries such as Norway about the shared management of a shared stock, in order to ensure we have sustainable fishing. If we do not allow ourselves any flexibility to broach such a discussion with Norway and reach such an agreement, the only outcome is that everybody walks away from the table without an agreement and unilaterally sets their own fishing opportunities, which is the worst of all worlds for our marine environment.

This is a complex area, but it is right to have that statutory commitment in clause 1�a statutory requirement to have a plan that demonstrates how we will reach that commitment, while recognising that we will always needs some flexibility, due to the complexity of the marine environment.

[Mr Carmichael]

To deal with the question of days at sea first, as I said, these are probing amendments. The Minister�s comments are helpful and it is useful to have them on the record, so, as I indicated earlier, I do not intend to push the amendment to a Division.

However, I want to tease out the Minister�s thinking about amendment 25 a bit more. His objection to amendment 25 is twofold. First, he says these things can be put into the fisheries statement, which is absolutely correct. Secondly, he says that this commitment will have to be met by the time the legislation comes into effect. I see no problem with that. For us to say that by the time we implement this we should have got to this point is not a criticism of the amendment at all.

The Minister�s point about the fisheries statement is interesting. He is right: that is the good and sensible place for maximum sustainable yield to be enshrined, but there is no guarantee that it will be. As we know, the fisheries statement will be subject to a negotiation between four Administrations. There might be any number of reasons why maximum sustainable yield might fall from that particular safety net. If, for any reason, it were not to form part of the fisheries statement, there is nothing else in the Bill that would enshrine maximum sustainable yield as the guiding principle. For that reason, I am not persuaded by the Minister�s assurances and will press amendment 25 to a division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move amendment 28, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�7,�at end insert�

�( ) When determining fishing opportunities under this section, if the current biomass of the stock or the maximum sustainable yield are not able to be estimated reliably using the best available scientific advice, the Secretary of State must�

(a) not use the uncertainty in that evidence as a reason for failing to determine fishing opportunities for the stock, and

(b) determine the maximum quantity of sea fish that may be caught by British fishing boats which functions as a suitable scientific proxy to maximum sustainable yield, and is consistent with the scientific evidence and precautionary objectives.�

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a suitable proxy is used to determine fishing opportunities for data-deficient stocks.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 29, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�7,�at end insert�

�( ) For those stocks for which fishing opportunities are not determined, fisheries policy authorities must�

(a) ensure that exploitation does not exceed the level associated with maximum sustainable yield, or

(b) if the current biomass of the stock or the maximum sustainable yield are not able to be estimated reliably using the best available scientific advice, ensure that exploitation does not exceed a suitable scientific proxy to maximum sustainable yield, and is consistent with the scientific evidence and precautionary objectives.�

The purpose of this amendment is to set a target of 2020 for fishing mortality to be set at sustainable levels for those stocks that are not subject to catch limits, such as shellfish.

Amendment 62, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�11,�at end insert�

�(3A) The Secretary of State must ensure that a baseline stock assessment has been made for all non-quota species by 2030 and he must report on progress on an annual basis.�

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to gather a baseline stock assessment for those stocks that are not subject to catch limits.

[Mr Carmichael]

Amendments 28 and 29 can, I think, be dealt with in fairly short order. Again, they try to put a bit more environmental rigour into the Bill�the sort of thing that we saw in the White Paper, but which does not seem to have survived the translation from policy into legislation.

In relation to amendment 28, the Minister and the Committee will doubtless be aware that there are a number of species that are, to use the jargon, data deficient: that is to say, we do not have the useful data that we would require in order to set them as quota species. The procedures outlined in the amendment are guidelines that are to be applied to ensure that a lack of sufficient data is not used as an excuse, or a reason, for fishing those species irresponsibly. The amendment really is self-explanatory.

Likewise, amendment 29 sets a target of 2020 for fishing mortality to be set at a sustainable level for stocks that are not subject to catch limits, such as shellfish. It would bring to the overall framework of fisheries management a coherence that is currently lacking.

[Luke Pollard]

The principles contained in amendments 28 and 29 are good ones, as they deal with how to make sure that we are fishing sustainably.

Amendment 62, which we are also considering, talks about the need for baseline stock assessments by 2030. The reason I tabled that amendment is to try to get the Minister to set out his position on making sure that we are addressing data deficiency. A key reason why our fisheries cannot be classed as sustainable�as we have spoken about in previous sittings of this Committee�is that there is a deficiency of the data that guarantees those fish stocks are sustainable. Making a baseline stock assessment, especially of some of the non-quota species that are under severe pressure, is an important step towards achieving fully sustainable fisheries.

The Minister will know, for instance, about the importance of cuttlefish to the south-west�s mixed fisheries and to fishing fleets in the west country. The lack of a decent level of data regarding cuttlefish is one of the concerns about the future sustainability of that industry, especially as stock levels are going up and down. This year in particular, fishers have reported an alarming rise in smaller cuttlefish coming through where, in the past, they expected larger ones. The purpose of amendment 62 and, I believe, of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland�the sentiment of which we can support�is to get better data, to make sure that no fishing levels are being set above the scientific data level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Every day is a school day. Who knew that we could age a fish by measuring its eardrums?

I am grateful to the Minister for a very detailed answer. These amendments are a bit more than probing amendments; they are about serious issues, which require full consideration. Again, this is another area where we see the general deficiency of the approach that the Government have taken to the Bill. I would be more impressed with the Minister�s views on getting more data in relation to data-poor species if he had taken a different attitude towards the amendments that we have tabled to document all fish that are caught.

Notwithstanding that, and to allow the Committee to make some progress, I will not press this matter to Division today, with the caveat that we will probably wish to return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Let us be clear, however: at the moment, given the differences between the Bill, the withdrawal agreement, the promises made in that agreement and the discussions that will take place as part of our future economic and political partnership with the European Union, there is heavy scepticism in the industry. It sees a risk of further betrayal and that we will not be able to draw down from our EU friends the quota that we had hoped for. In such circumstances, it is even more important that we ensure that the quota that we already have is allocated according to transparent social and economic criteria for the benefit of those communities.

[Mr Carmichael]

Does the hon. Gentleman have a mechanism for ensuring that that redistributed quota does not become a tradeable commodity in turn?

[Luke Pollard]

That is at the heart of the current problem. The quota has been traded; indeed, a future Opposition amendment will deal with the problem that the right hon. Gentleman identifies of slipper skippers who trade their quotas as a commodity, using them not to catch fish but as financial instruments to derive income from by renting them out to others. We need to ensure that the economic criteria for redistributing the fishing quota take into account the importance of the quota holder�s using the quota to catch fish rather than as a financial product. Deriving income from a quota without using it damages the viability of the sector by increasing costs without increasing productivity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

As previously, I am in broad sympathy with the approach taken by the hon. Gentleman, but I am concerned that he suggests a big and fairly open-ended commitment here. As I implied during the evidence session, I fear that we would probably be at risk of producing a dripping roast for lawyers for some time to come.

Although it was probably never intended to be the case, fish quota has become a tradeable commodity over the years. Several fishing businesses have made and taken on fairly substantial financial commitments secured against the fact that they own quota and can derive an income from it. The words that start to come to my mind are �legitimate expectation�, and once that is the case we know that we will be heading towards the courts to determine the extent of that legitimate expectation, who has it and the basis on which it can be traded.

Not everybody who owns fish quota is a robber baron. Shetland Islands Council owns a substantial amount of fishing quota that it leases to local boats. That is for the public good, and I would be careful about interfering with the council�s property rights in that way. I would be very open to the idea of returning quota�quota that we do not currently have access to�being dealt with differently; it could be distributed in different ways. Some of the lessons of the past could be learned so that it did not become a tradeable commodity. The property rights could be defined in a very different way, which, with hindsight, we might wish we had done 30 or 40 years ago but did not.

As I say, the amendment would make a fairly big and open-ended commitment. I do not know whether it would necessarily be the best use of the money required. Before I went down this road, I would want to know a bit more than the broad principles. I would want to know how the practicalities would work. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, fish quota have essentially been privatised. He is effectively talking about nationalisation, and that comes with a price tag attached.

[Luke Pollard]

It is not about nationalisation; it is about the redistribution of fish quota, and the amendment is about being able to do so without a time limit. As the Minister said, distributing FQA takes time, which is why there is deliberately no time limit in the amendment. However, there is a commitment to consult with those groups, including the fishing fleets, to ensure it is redistributed fairly.

[Mr Carmichael]

That is helpful, but I am not entirely sure about the hon. Gentleman�s distinction between redistribution and nationalisation. At the end of the day, we risk spending public money. I am not averse to that�it may ultimately be necessary, and I can certainly see the end that is to be met by it�but at the moment it is a little ill-defined. I would favour an approach that dealt differently with the returning quota, rather than mucking about with the existing quota. I am not averse to the idea, but we should not be blind to the risks that come with it.

[George Eustice]

The purpose of clause 20 is predominantly to bring across article 17 from the European Union and make it operable. Article 17 will come across as retained EU law. All we are seeking to do is to make changes that make it operable and preserve its intent.

Article 17 states:

�When allocating the fishing opportunities available to them�Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. The criteria to be used may include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on the environment, the history of compliance, the contribution to the local economy and historic catch levels. Within the fishing opportunities allocated to them, Member States shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact�.

I believe that article 17, as currently worded, captures many of the intentions behind this amendment and the last one moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney.

There is a technical issue with the way amendment 106 is drafted. It does not make specific reference to fixed quota allocations�FQA units�as a basis; it simply talks about trying to redistribute historical fishing opportunities. It is therefore trying to reallocate opportunities that have already been spent�the quota that were attached to the FQA units. I would argue that, from a technical point of view, it would make more sense to have made reference to FQA units.

Greenpeace has had a longstanding campaign on article 17, since at least 2015. In 2016, it brought a judicial review against the Government, arguing that we had not complied with article 17, and it was roundly defeated in that case. Mrs Justice Andrews stated during the case that

�there is a large volume of detailed rules, licence conditions, schemes and policies, including the Concordat and the Quota Management Regulations�which are published and openly available and which have been notified to the Commission. There is ample evidence that they include environmental criteria as required by Article 17, and that far from paying them lip service, they are afforded proper weight in the allocation process.�

The judgment of the European Court of Auditors was that the case brought by Greenpeace was wrong.

Greenpeace has had a longstanding campaign on article 17, but in my view it has been barking up the wrong tree. The truth is that if we want to address the issue of fishing opportunities for the inshore sector, we should not do it by clinging to some article in residual EU law. The correct way to do it is to include, as I have committed to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that I will, a reference to fishing opportunities in the Secretary of State�s fishing statement, where it directly links to the socioeconomic impacts on coastal communities�not to attempt to play with the wording of article 17.